If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state legislator.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president - and, by extension, the vice president - to be "a natural born citizen."

ST has been saying for months that everyone concerned about 0bama’s eligibility is an idiot and that s/he, ST The Great, is very, very busy in his/her home state, trying to get a law passed that will require candidates to prove their citizenship status.

Well, that's just not true but for the sake of debate let's pretend this birther myth is the Law of the Land. How must each and every presidential candidate prove to the Arizona Secretary of State that their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth?

Such a law should also clearly provide that any candidate who fails to provide absolute and unambiguous proof of NBC shall not be listed on the ballot for either President or VP and that even if elected (through printing error or write-in votes) shall not receive any electors;

and that any candidate which provides false, forged, or otherwise tampered with documents, false testimony, or any other false evidence shall be guilty of a felony offense, penalty of which will be no less than 20 years at hard labor, and prima fascia evidence of treason;

and that electors representing the State shall not cast any vote for such disqualified candidate;

and elector casting such vote shall be guilty of a felony offense, penalty of which will be no less than 20 years at hard labor, and prima fascia evidence of treason.

The law should also contain a definition of Natural Born Citizen as: one who has never owed allegiance to any other country and was born in the United States and whose birth mother is a US citizen and whose birth father is a US citizen;

and that all submitted evidence of proof is a public record open for examination and challenge by any citizen;

and that every citizen, in their own behalf, or any government agency on the state’s behalf, has standing to bring suit to force production of said proof if said proof has been withheld from the public.

If such laws were enacted in even a handful of states, it would compel compliance, or at least a great deal of litigation and scrutiny. No Presidential candidate could afford to be not on the ballot in four or five states as it would lead to great damage to the state parties and candidates in the affected states.

You were saying ... Is that proof going to require documentary evidence that both parents were American citizens at the time of birth??? That understanding, that you're presenting here, is disputed among conservatives and others, as to whether that is a requirement. You may think so, but others think not. As far as I can see, this kind of requirement that is spoken about here on Free Republic with a few Freepers maintaining that this is so -- is only going to be resolved by a Supreme Court decision. You're not going to find any legislature that will pass that kind of specific requirement into law -- but -- you will find that state legislatures will have a relatively easy time of passing a law that requires a birth certificate to be shown or else the candidate cannot be on the ballot.

She doesn't mind state legislatures passing laws that all candidates present birth certificates because she knows that the Hawaiian Democratically-controlled criminal syndicate will provide Obama with any piece of paper that he might need to comply with any state law, 50 different birth certificates if necessary.

But she bristles at the thought of the candidate being required to provide proof that both parents were US citizens at the time of birth -- as it is truly Obama's Achilee's heel for which they have no answer. She is probably NS's wife.

It would be pretty obvious if ‘bammy refused to be on the ballot in 1 state, but 4 or 5, besides making even the some liberals question his qualifications, would make it electorially impossible to win.

75
posted on 01/13/2010 5:36:19 AM PST
by MrB
(The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)

Such a law should also clearly provide that any candidate who fails to provide absolute and unambiguous proof of NBC shall not be listed on the ballot for either President or VP and that even if elected (through printing error or write-in votes) shall not receive any electors;

And considering that the states control their ballots and can set their own criteria for who can be on it then there is no reason why such a law wouldn't be upheld by the courts. And it would take only one state to pass a law for it to have its desired effect - no candidate from a major party can refuse to run in any state without eyebrows being raised.

Well you're so big on non-binding resolutions and all I thought it might help. After all, one non-binding resolution is just as irrelevant as another, and are no more legal precedent than Chief Justice Marshall's dicta in the Venus case.

Sham wow -- all of that and yet they can't understand Justice Marshall's words in the Venus decision. Go figure.

I have no doubt at all that they can understand Chief Justice Marshall's words. And I'm also sure they understand what obiter dictum is, what dissenting opinions are, and how the courts work. Unlike others around here.

"Is that proof going to require documentary evidence that both parents were American citizens at the time of birth???"

Probably not since:

A. Parents' citizenship at time of birth is irrelevant to the eligibility of an American-born candidate and...

As evidenced by the fact that Spiro Agnew served despite having a non-citizen father. And as further evidenced by how no one ever pressed John Kerry on the question of his parents' citizenship. Or Ralph Nader. Or Mike Gravel. Or Bill Richardson. Or Michael Dukakis. Or Geraldine Ferraro...

If such laws were enacted in even a handful of states, it would compel compliance, or at least a great deal of litigation and scrutiny. No Presidential candidate could afford to be not on the ballot in four or five states as it would lead to great damage to the state parties and candidates in the affected states.

Exactly right. And I do think that a handful of states would be necessary, and not just one state. Theoretically just one state gets the issue out there and exposed and just one state having the birth certificate shown does the job for all the other states.

But, I have always said that I prefer having several states do it (maybe only 5 or so states, perhaps) so that there is enough support for this kind of thing so that no one could "marginalize" just one state and perhaps, even try to bypass just one state (even though bypassing one state would create a big uproar, I'm sure...).

So, I would encourage all FReepers to work within their respective states and with their legislators to get it done. It's a needed thing and we really should have had this sort of thing in place a long time ago. I guess many people thought it was not needed (in the past). But, now they see it's needed.

87
posted on 01/13/2010 8:12:07 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

It would be pretty obvious if bammy refused to be on the ballot in 1 state, but 4 or 5, besides making even the some liberals question his qualifications, would make it electorially impossible to win.

Yes, exactly right, 5 or so would be a good number, and considering that we're talking about 50 states, I can't see why we can't get a mere five states to require a birth certificate to be produced and shown or else the candidate cannot be on the ballot in that state.

It should be a no-brainer... :-)

88
posted on 01/13/2010 8:13:15 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

And considering that the states control their ballots and can set their own criteria for who can be on it then there is no reason why such a law wouldn't be upheld by the courts. And it would take only one state to pass a law for it to have its desired effect - no candidate from a major party can refuse to run in any state without eyebrows being raised.

That's theoretically correct in that it would take only one state to require this to get the results of having a candidate's birth certificate shown -- or else showing that the candidate refuses to comply with the law in that one state and bypasses that state's Electoral College votes.

But, even though it's theoretically right, I would prefer, in practic, to have about 5 or so states do this, so that it becomes impossible to bypass all those Electoral College votes in all those states and still win the election, if a candidate were to try doing that, in order to get around the law.

I don't think it would be that difficult for about five or more states to get such a simple law passed and I can't see what any big objection would be to it, since it would apply to all candidates alike.

89
posted on 01/13/2010 8:14:21 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

ST has been saying for months that everyone concerned about 0bamas eligibility is an idiot and that s/he, ST The Great, is very, very busy in his/her home state, trying to get a law passed that will require candidates to prove their citizenship status.

Well, I must say that I'm pleased to see that you're still reading my posts. All this time I thought you said you weren't going to be reading them any more... :-)

AND..., I can see what your problem is... it's with reading skills and reading comprehension. After all this time of me posting about this solution, you still don't know what I've said about it... LOL...

What I've said all along and in just about these words is that to solve the problem that many people found out -- which was that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to show his birth certificate -- that we need to get a few states to pass a law that requires a candidate show/produce his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot on that state.

Now, that's what I've said in just about those words, with hardly any variation, when I've been proposing the solution to everyone asking for the birth certificate to be shown.

You really need to brush up on your reading skills... LOL...

And now s/he says its a waste of time?

Ummmm..., "reading skills again"... LOL...

Take another look -- as that was another poster that said it was a waste of time, not me. I think that we should get several states to pass a state law to require candidates to show/produce a birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot. Obama won't be the last President that we may have questions about, and Obama might retire from the Presidency, after this one term, as far as I know. Some FReepers here have suggested that this might happen.

This is simply a good law for the states to pass, regardless of whether Obama runs again or not. We need it either way.

I dont get it.

I would suggest brushing up on reading skills and you'll find that comprehension may improve... LOL...

90
posted on 01/13/2010 8:15:51 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

She doesn't mind state legislatures passing laws that all candidates present birth certificates because she knows that the Hawaiian Democratically-controlled criminal syndicate will provide Obama with any piece of paper that he might need to comply with any state law, 50 different birth certificates if necessary.

It's just as I've seen from the beginning... just propose a simple solution to the problem of there being no legal requirement for a candidate to produce a birth certificate -- and some of those of the Obama Derangement Syndrome will nix the idea because it's not complicated enough for them and it's way too simple of a solution... LOL...

Just like I said up above to someone else...

There's a lot of opposition to this kind of thing (i.e., a state law) -- or, at least, there has been in the past. I don't know if many of the Obama Derangement Syndrome people are still opposing it like they were right after the election... when I was proposing it.

But she bristles at the thought of the candidate being required to provide proof that both parents were US citizens at the time of birth -- as it is truly Obama's Achilee's heel for which they have no answer. She is probably NS's wife.

I guess stating the reality that there are conservatives that disagree with you on what you say about the parents' citizenship in regards to the Constitutional requirements for office -- is "bristling"... LOL...

Sorry, the fact of reality, is that when you get your own people who disagree with you (those other conservatives in those various legislatures) and you expect them to pass a law in their state in which they disagree with your view -- is very naive -- to think that such a law is going to be proposed, much less pass.

That's what I call a statement of reality, for you.

Another statement of reality for you is that you're not going to see a resolution of this disagreement (with the parents' citizenship in regards to the Constitutional requirements) -- without getting a Supreme Court decision.

BUT, you're also ignoring a very large segment of the population, here, when you say that, who wants to have the birth certificate produced -- which is exactly what this kind of proposal that I've made since right after the election -- would solve very simply.

Thus, you would not have the disagreement within conservative circles on the basis of getting all candidates to produce their birth certificate or else they cannot be placed on the ballot in that state. That's what can easily be passed and that's what will get the birth certificate to be shown -- as has been demanded by many here.

91
posted on 01/13/2010 8:17:47 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

Well gee, it's soooo easy to lie online... I'm sure your last line was sarcasm. There was another After-Birther pushing that same line - it's a talking point or a lying point for them.

Well, I knew the other poster had a problem with reading skills, but I didn't know that you did too... :-)

As I've seen, I was the first one to propose the very easy solution to the issue here -- which was that Obama did not produce a birth certificate to be a candidate.

And as I've said since just after the election, the states need to pass a law that requires candidates to produce a birth certificate or else they cannot be placed on the ballot in that state.

It was such an easy solution to a problem that many people didn't know that we had (or didn't realize it) -- in that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to show or produce his birth certificate. This legislative solution in the states was too simple of a solution for some Obama Derangement Syndrome people, who preferred imaginary solutions that were not working and failing repeatededly and getting nowhere...

So, I see that since your solutions have been repeatedly failing, you obviously want to shoot down the simplest solution of all -- these state laws requiring a birth certificate to be shown... LOL...

It's no wonder y'all have the moniker of "Obama Derangement Syndrome"... a label created by other conservatives to name this type of group, as they apparently "went insane" after the election of Obama...

93
posted on 01/13/2010 8:19:57 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

All you would need is one state to demand the long form of the birth certificate and youd have all the proof you would need. If he didnt produce it for Arizona, the rest of the states would see what a fraud he was and the jig would be up.

That's true theoretically, but it's also conceivable that a candidate could blame just one state for "not getting on the ballot" and try to spin it another way. So, in practice, I would prefer to see about five or more states do it. It would be impossible for a candidate to spin it another way about all those states.

You don't have to have all 50 states, but I think five or more would be good, in practice.

And furthermore, if a candidate did attempt to bypass the requirement by simply not being on the ballot in those states, then they would face an uphill battle to even get enough Electoral College votes to gain the majority in the election. I don't think they could do it -- under those circumstances, even if they tried.

94
posted on 01/13/2010 8:21:04 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

The Constitution isnt a law? I wonder how many Constitutional violations hes made.

The problem is that while the Constitution does say what a candidate must be in order to take office as President -- it doesn't say how it is to be shown or proved.

Now, Obama did it the same way all the previous candidates did it, too -- so there was nothing different there. It's just that with this candidate, that FReepers stated that they wanted to "see" the birth certificate.

What they found out is that there is no legal requirement for a candidate to show his birth certificate, and hence..., the "problem".

The state law which can be enacted, requiring a candidate to show his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot in that state -- will solve this problem of a candidate not being legally required to show it.

It's a relatively simple problem -- with an equally simple solution... enact the state law.... and it's solved.

96
posted on 01/13/2010 8:26:55 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

But, even though it's theoretically right, I would prefer, in practic, to have about 5 or so states do this, so that it becomes impossible to bypass all those Electoral College votes in all those states and still win the election, if a candidate were to try doing that, in order to get around the law.

One state would be the minimum. But I agree that the more states that do it the more effective it would be.

I understand you point entirely. It's just that it's a sad day when the highest officer holder in America will not abide by the spirit of our Constitution. Your idea is a worthwhile one. It's just too bad it's called for.

And I still contend that he will thumb his nose at it if he so chooses. And he will choose. And Americans will acquiesce.

98
posted on 01/13/2010 9:39:19 AM PST
by FrdmLvr
("The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." Orwell)

And I still contend that he will thumb his nose at it if he so chooses. And he will choose. And Americans will acquiesce.

It's possible that he might "thumb his nose at it" (and perhaps other candidates might, too...) -- but the beauty of this plan is that if a candidate does not follow the requirement of the law in that state, they cannot be on the ballot and they will not receive Electoral College Votes, as a result of not being on the ballot.

That makes it so that a candidate can't simply "ignore" it -- because ignoring it means "no name on the ballot" and "no Electoral College votes" from that state.

A candidate couldn't ignore it, without direct consequences to them -- but they might try to "challenge" it -- but then if they did that, it raises the stakes way high and also -- a court has to agree with the candidate. And since the states have control over what the requirements are for placing a name on the ballot, I don't see how a judge is going to agree with a candidate that he doesn't have to follow the explicit directions of that state law for placing his name on the ballot.

So, it takes not just "ignoring it" and "thumbing his nose" at it -- but also -- it takes the legal system getting involved and then a judge agreeing with a candidate that he does not have to follow that particular law. I can't see that one happening, in terms of that kind of state law and requirement for getting on the ballot.

I think it's a very good and effective solution that any candidate would have a very difficult time ignoring.

99
posted on 01/13/2010 9:52:50 AM PST
by Star Traveler
(Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

A candidate couldn't ignore it, without direct consequences to them -- but they might try to "challenge" it

Any challange will come not from the candidate himself but from voters arguing they are being disenfranchised. And they would have a valid point.

We could be treading into dangerous territory when we write reactionary laws that would limit who we can vote for to only those candidates who have been "pre-approved" by the State. This is no different than the style of "democracy" practiced in places like Iran. And if conservatives don't think such a law will come back and bite us in the tail, we need to think again.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.